In all selective systems, the ones who is majority takes the power. In democracy, the power of majority is democratic. Whoever is majority takes the power, whoever is minority does not have power. The relationship between the majority and minority during the election continues as a debate between two separate methods. The only thing that they don't discuss is elections. Election is a bet which begins when a group says "I-we want to administrate society" and they are replied by another group saying "no I-we want to administrate". Election is a process of counting voters, initiated by agreement of the parties of the bet and can not occur without the voters. The government of society is owned by the side which has more voters than the other side. The voter is only a numeric value in the bet. This numeric value is not a value to care about for a citizen trying to solve the many problems of everyday life. To increase participation to elections, the parties of the bet, want to promote the citizens from the voter title into the bettor title. This should increase the participation of the bet. The increase in attendance will cause the voter, being a number, to internalize the bet and then the domination formed as a result the result of the elections. The voter will accept the result of elections and the power of the selected side, regardless of who won or lost. This acceptance of the citizens is a win for each group who bets on elections. As long as the winner of the elections continues its government, the loser will continue its opposition and both sides will wait for the next elections.
[Turkçe][Français][Ελληνικά]
Also read:Regarding Referendum 2 DAF
Referanduma Dair 2 DAF (in Turkish)
read full story / add a comment

I came from the kind of poor that people don’t want to believe still exists in this country. Have you ever spent a frigid northern-Illinois winter without heat or running water? I have. At 12 years old were you making ramen noodles in a coffee maker with water you fetched from a public bathroom? I was. Have you ever lived in a camper year-round and used a random relative’s apartment as your mailing address? We did. Did you attend so many different elementary schools that you can only remember a quarter of their names? Welcome to my childhood. read full story / add a comment

On 11 February 2016, I issued an initial personal statement on the Michael Schmidt affair.[1] I completely rejected the irredeemable racist and right-wing statements attributed to Schmidt, which were mainly posted under false names online. They represent positions I have consistently opposed, for decades, to the best of my abilities. I noted problems with his explanation, centred on the claim that his posts and false personas were solely means for infiltrating the radical right for undercover research. I raised serious ethical problems with his actions, including his admitted role in repeatedly frustrating earlier investigations into his actions by myself and others. I also laid out my emotional turmoil over the affair, the gulf between the Schmidt I knew and trusted, a man active in left and black working class circles, and another Schmidt, increasingly exposed. read full story / add a comment